Trading down (with Portland)

the_bruce · Post #41 » by **the_bruce** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:39 pm

Ditching Jarics contract isnt worth giving up spots in the draft imo. Especially to POR.

deeney0 · Post #42 » by **deeney0** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 12:02 am

Wingman wrote:If you would go from top five to 12-14 to save glen taylor a few million, you are an idiot. It would end up costing him more as well, because people wouldn't be excited about a mid first round pick. Thank God McHale has more sense than some of the people around here.

It has nothing to do with saving Taylor money, it's about getting far enough under the cap to sign a max FA.

deeney0 · Post #43 » by **deeney0** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 12:04 am

shrink wrote:I see no reason to do this trade.

Look, Portland is already above 500, and you have to expect young guys like Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge to improve. Freakin' Greg Oden is joining the team next year, and we want to give them a Beasley or Derrick Rose too? The Blazers are in our division, and except for Al, that would mean they have four young players better than any of ours. How valuable do you think that 2010 1st is really going to be?

No, that's why the OP specifies the pick to be #3 or lower. I (and many others it seems) feel there is a huge drop off in talent in this draft after Beasley and Rose.

theGreatRC · Post #44 » by **theGreatRC** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 12:39 am

Trading a 3#-#5 pick for salary relief and giving that pick to a team in our own division? No thanks, two picks in the teens doesn't ease the pain either.

skorff26 · Post #45 » by **skorff26** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 2:31 pm

I'd do raef/rodriguez/08 and 10 1sts/08 2nd NY for walker/jaric/08 1st (if outside of top 2)

-think about it, who would we draft at #3, (bayless, lopez, jordan, gordon)

and who could we get at #13 (one of the foreign guys, thabeet, mayo (if he falls some more), arthur, hibbert)

-this way we move jaric, we lose a little talent but not a ton in our first, and we help solidify our PG spot with rodriguez, and we get another 2nd and a future 1st

deeney0 · Post #46 » by **deeney0** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 5:09 pm

Mayo doesn't fall to 13, no way.

Post #47 » by **Calinks** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:12 pm

I never want to help the direct competition. Portland is already a dynasty in the making, I'll be no part of contributing to that for an upper level lottery pick and quite possibly a non-lottery first rounder.

Post #48 » by **revprodeji** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:18 pm

Bad deal, very bad deal.

Guys, the value of a #1 pick is much more than you are giving it. You do not simple ditch contracts. If Portland wants the #1 then they can start the deal with LMA+draft picks+ending contracts. Then we can talk. Until then there is no deal.

I have no issue exploring options with the #1 but only if we get back a legit young player (LMA in this case) and other things. But this deal is horrible.

Post #49 » by **Worm Guts** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:32 pm

revprodeji wrote:Bad deal, very bad deal.

Guys, the value of a #1 pick is much more than you are giving it. You do not simple ditch contracts. If Portland wants the #1 then they can start the deal with LMA+draft picks+ending contracts. Then we can talk. Until then there is no deal.

I have no issue exploring options with the #1 but only if we get back a legit young player (LMA in this case) and other things. But this deal is horrible.

The idea was that it was the #3 pick or later. But it's still not a good trade.

MN Die Hard · Post #50 » by **MN Die Hard** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:33 pm

revprodeji wrote:Bad deal, very bad deal.

Guys, the value of a #1 pick is much more than you are giving it. You do not simple ditch contracts. If Portland wants the #1 then they can start the deal with LMA+draft picks+ending contracts. Then we can talk. Until then there is no deal.

I have no issue exploring options with the #1 but only if we get back a legit young player (LMA in this case) and other things. But this deal is horrible.

Rev are you saying "#1" to mean our first rounder or the #1 overall?

Cause the underlying assumption in this thread is that the trade talk only happens if we draw pick #3 or worse; if we draw #1 or #2 we keep it.

Post #51 » by **revprodeji** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:46 pm

my bad. I thought it was first overall. I still would not do it with portland. Unless maybe if they attached Frye. or if their pick was still top 10.

Ditching Walker makes no sense cus he is expiring.

nah, I do not do it. Trading with portland is not something I want to do. I would rather jus draft the BPA

shrink · Post #52 » by **shrink** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:51 pm

I'm with rev, even if it was the #3 pick. I don't think MIN can run the risk that picking 10 higher in the lottery won't give too much benefit to perhaps our biggest future division rival.

MN Die Hard · Post #53 » by **MN Die Hard** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 7:13 pm

You guys are winning me over. I've also looked back at some recent drafts, and the liklihood of getting a stud at 10-15 is definitely much less than doing it at 3-5. Still not a lock at 3-5 but the odds are much better than I would have guessed from memory.

I still have this concern - picking at 3-5 is probably too early to take a player we need most to fill a hole (i.e. defensive center). So if we wind up going BPA (Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, etc), we still have a gaping hole in the middle, plus a log jam on the wing (and perhaps many of them are undersized to boot).

What about Lopez or Jordan? Ok they fill a hole, but then my question for the scouts is this: Are they really that much better than Thabeet/Hibbert? And this isnt a rhetorical question - I really would like to hear someone's take on that since, admitedly, I'm not a huge college BB fan.

Krapinsky · Post #54 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:41 pm

I think a more interesting option (if we get 3-5 pick) would be packaging the pick with the expirings of Walker and Buckner for a restricted free agent in a sign in trade. In some scenarios maybe we also get that teams later first rounder. Who would you guys consider?

Thus, an example is this: Walker + Buckner + Pick for Deng

I don't have my insider pass word with me. Can someone add to this a list of potential RFA's/UFA's we may want to consider in such a scenario. I know there's Igoudala, Okafor... who else?

Post #55 » by **Basti** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:59 pm

well I'd consider such trade only for meka and not for deng or iggy. you can find wing men a lot easier than defensive Cs

casey · Post #56 » by **casey** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 11:14 pm

MN Die Hard wrote:I still have this concern - picking at 3-5 is probably too early to take a player we need most to fill a hole (i.e. defensive center). So if we wind up going BPA (Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, etc), we still have a gaping hole in the middle, plus a log jam on the wing (and perhaps many of them are undersized to boot).

I think people worry too much about positions on this team. The way I look at it we have one position filled, starting PF. We have needs everywhere else.

andyhop · Post #57 » by **andyhop** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 11:44 pm

Dr.Krapinsky wrote:I think a more interesting option (if we get 3-5 pick) would be packaging the pick with the expirings of Walker and Buckner for a restricted free agent in a sign in trade. In some scenarios maybe we also get that teams later first rounder. Who would you guys consider?

Thus, an example is this: Walker + Buckner + Pick for Deng

I don't have my insider pass word with me. Can someone add to this a list of potential RFA's/UFA's we may want to consider in such a scenario. I know there's Igoudala, Okafor... who else?

The trouble with this is that the draft occurs before you can sign the FA and so it depends on the player that you pick being attractive to the other team.

With Okafor maybe the Bobcats would be interested in that sort of deal as long as the Wolves pick was a big like Lopez to replace him, whereas if you want Iggy then Lopez isn't that attractive to the Sixers making a deal unlikely.

The only guy I would be interested in is Okafor and I still have doubts that dealing for him would be a good idea.I think I would rather take a risk on the potential of the draft pick overtaking Okafor's value.

MN Die Hard · Post #58 » by **MN Die Hard** » Sat Mar 8, 2008 4:07 am

casey wrote:I think people worry too much about positions on this team. The way I look at it we have one position filled, starting PF. We have needs everywhere else.

True, very true. By no means am I suggesting we cannot improve at 1-2-3. However, we do have guys who can at least keep those spots warm for now, whereas next year we dont have a single legitimate center on the roster. Filling the hole at center not only means we add (hopefully) scoring and defense; it also means we move Al back to his natural PF position, which I assume will make Al happy.

andyhop · Post #59 » by **andyhop** » Sat Mar 8, 2008 4:31 am

MN Die Hard wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

True, very true. By no means am I suggesting we cannot improve at 1-2-3. However, we do have guys who can at least keep those spots warm for now, whereas next year we dont have a single legitimate center on the roster. Filling the hole at center not only means we add (hopefully) scoring and defense; it also means we move Al back to his natural PF position, which I assume will make Al happy.

Interesting to note that whilst everyone including me puts a C as the biggest need ,the stats show that the real need is for better players at the 1-2-3 positions.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708MIN5.HTM

Hopefully the better players at those positions are the ones on the roster now + development,experience and health, but from the stats the idea of picking #2 and taking Rose looks like it could well be a blessing in disguise rather than a consolation prize.

MN Die Hard · Post #60 » by **MN Die Hard** » Sat Mar 8, 2008 5:46 am

andyhop wrote:Interesting to note that whilst everyone including me puts a C as the biggest need ,the stats show that the real need is for better players at the 1-2-3 positions.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708MIN5.HTM

Hopefully the better players at those positions are the ones on the roster now + development,experience and health, but from the stats the idea of picking #2 and taking Rose looks like it could well be a blessing in disguise rather than a consolation prize.

This is because Al is playing out of position at center....that cannot happen forever.